Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!

Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

After reading several pages of this... and I am being serious, why is Zeeper even chiming in when he does not have a CVT. How dare you! Seriously, enough!!! If you had a CVT then you should argue your points, but you don't. When was the vote by CVT owners appointing you to speak for us.... I missed it? I vote no, SHUT UP!!! arrogant ignorance.. For many reasons, most recently this one.

For the record, I think the problem with the CVT is the PZEV - and the warm up period. In the warmer weather, I have finally been able to achieve 30mpg plus... same variables, but just barely. When comparing cars for MPG ratings, it does not matter AWD or FWD/RWD.. the MPG rating is the MPG rating. I won't dare to speak for anybody else, but IMO, the Impreza MPG ratings for the CVT are way over optimistic. As others have stated, when trying their best to achieve the best MPG, they are falling short when compared to other cars, rated the same or less!!! That is a fact, not an opinion. So are they/we liars.. no we are just sharing. What gives you to the right to talk about CVT when you dont have one... Again Arrogant Ignorance! Hate that I had to type this.

For those who love the CVT and love the MPG's, Congrats, and Good Luck. So far my car has not consumed any oil that I know of and has performed well, AWD is great, rattles can be annoying, but I definately feel the CVT Impreza should be rated less MPG wise.

I think the Pzev has partial to do with it, or totally but indirectly. The warm up might hurt a little, but that's not hardly even calc amount. Your taking a min or two of idling. That will not even be enough to measure. I think the issue in winter is fuel blend period. The aero argument with cold air is rubbish. Anyone whom grew up around racing will know what in talking about. My cummins turbo truck with 600 HP is very very noticeable with winter fuels and additive for anti gel. It takes much more fuel. I think the restrictive exhaust kills this poor motor. Id like to read cylinder ex pressures on this. I'd bet it would be mind boggling the amount of back pressure there is. I also think the tuning for engine and CVT could be optimized for much better results in both milage and mpg's.
The AWD does factor in if your basing your arguments in milage vs a fwd car. I believe that's why every test I've read including CR, states the milage is great for an awd car. You take ANY other manufacturer that makes the same car in a 2wd and awd version and compare milage between them. It's very notable the difference between them. Even a 4wd truck or SUV will get better than an awd vehicle. So its a monumental accomplishment for Subaru to have an awd even over the 30 mpg rating. If your comparing classes of cars, i.e. subcompact hatch etc then it'll be class based and not drivetrain based, and this is mainly due to the fact that there are not many manufacturers building a comparable car to Subaru with awd etc. so it has to be rated in a class somewhere. I think everyone has accurate points in their arguments, however then they get a little misplaced. I think Zeeper has valid points as well, and in no place I read did it say you can't have opinions on something you don't have. I've read post after post with figures that were derived from averages and means. I'm sure there are fairly accurate percentages stating the differential in mpg with 5 sp vs cvt. so he can calculate it from his 5 sp just as anyone else can calculate from studies and tests from people you can only assume are competent. I mean, there are milages listed from vehicles you guys do not have, and prob never driven. Yet, you feel you have the right to comment on them. That's no different from having a like car, less different tranny. Most everybody whom posted were right at some point in their posts, and some were even saying the same thing, just using opposing tone. I think we will see much more of this type of deviations in vehicles as the mandates by the EPA to meet certain requirements ramp up. We are used to seeing more linear tuning, not there will be major tuning games to fly past these requirements by auto companies I'm afraid. It's all just a little silly to me. It's entirely possible to get mpg with power too, look at the corvette. The problem is the mindset isn't geared to that type of mpg, its geared to pleasantville where we all drive micros the same color in zombie fashion.

I think Zeeper has valid points as well, and in no place I read did it say you can't have opinions on something you don't have. I've read post after post with figures that were derived from averages and means. I'm sure there are fairly accurate percentages stating the differential in mpg with 5 sp vs cvt. so he can calculate it from his 5 sp just as anyone else can calculate from studies and tests from people you can only assume are competent. I mean, there are milages listed from vehicles you guys do not have, and prob never driven. Yet, you feel you have the right to comment on them. That's no different from having a like car, less different tranny.

I disagree here. Zeeper takes a few opinions from people who actually don't even care what mpg they get compared to similarly rated cars but are "happy" because it gets better than their old e.g. 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup, then throws them out as "proof" the CVT mpg is okay, as if somehow those half dozen stories become statistically significant.

Plus, despite the fact the "enthusiasts" here more often drive 5 speeds probably more ... enthusiastically (thus the definition of "enthusiast") a breakdown of fuelly cars shows the 5 speed actually gets better mpg than the CVT - that's probably the most significant factoid of fuelly, if there is one.

Taking a few opinions from this list is different than looking at comparisons from CR and mpgomatic, which clearly show the mpg of CVT's suffers.

Commenting on CR and mpgomatic results is a lot different than deriving opinions from a few tales here.

I disagree here. Zeeper takes a few opinions from people who actually don't even care what mpg they get compared to similarly rated cars but are "happy" because it gets better than their old e.g. 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup, then throws them out as "proof" the CVT mpg is okay, as if somehow those half dozen stories become statistically significant.

Plus, despite the fact the "enthusiasts" here more often drive 5 speeds probably more ... enthusiastically (thus the definition of "enthusiast") a breakdown of fuelly cars shows the 5 speed actually gets better mpg than the CVT - that's probably the most significant factoid of fuelly, if there is one.

Taking a few opinions from this list is different than looking at comparisons from CR and mpgomatic, which clearly show the mpg of CVT's suffers.

Commenting on CR and mpgomatic results is a lot different than deriving opinions from a few tales here.

Just to add a log - This is not about zeeper - never has been. He made it about him with his arrogant ignorance. How can one speak or argue a point about a CVT Impreza or want to without owning one? And to do it in such a manner that he has. Just ignorant. Zeeper is insignificant.

I purchased my car right before winter and my real world MPG's were horrible all winter. Just now I can just hit 30mpg sometimes much below and sometimes slightly higher.. same variables - FACT - Other cars rated the same or rated below driven in the exact same manner are very much so more forgiving or accurate, whatever anybody wants to call it. The key point of this thread is that some/many/few whatever the number - some owners see/feel that Subaru MPG claims/vast improvements are a little too optimistic to what real world provides vs. advertised. And to share.

I understand the car is AWD, but as stated the MPG rating is the rating, should not matter the drivetrain - that is factored into the rating. If your not hitting the advertised MPG claims but are just Happy with your purchase, does not take away from the fact that the car is not acheiving what it is claiming, that is my point. I too like this car alot, but the CVT should be rated much lower IMO. Every car I have owned I can meet or beat the MPG rating when applying economical real world driving habbits, this car/my car just does not provide same feedback. I won't speak to the 5spd b/c I have no hands on experience.

Just to add a log - This is not about zeeper - never has been. He made it about him with his arrogant ignorance. How can one speak or argue a point about a CVT Impreza or want to without owning one? And to do it in such a manner that he has. Just ignorant. Zeeper is insignificant.

I won't speak to the 5spd b/c I have no hands on experience.

I agree on Zeeper. He seems to impress those .... without higher level thinking.

I won't comment on the 5spd either, except that it gets better mpg on fuelly.com.

It is not unreasonable to comment on data sets that are public and available to us all, regardless of what we each personally drive.

mpgomatic rates the CVT equipped impreza at 36 mpg, CR rates it at 35(haven't actually seen whether this is cvt or 5mt but its the only number i have seen here not having paid to see CR's site...). EPA says 36.

it seems to me those numbers are all kosher. CR's is lower, but 1 mpg isn't something i'd call outrageous deviation... but then i'm not a statistician.

Steve, best of luck with your complaint, you'll need it. I hope you're satisfied with the result, whatever it may be.

Fuelly is a good source of data, vis a vis CVT vs 5 Speed Highway mpg's, but only if you look at the individual vehicles that are getting the best mileage.

The problem using their dataset as a talking point is:

1) They base their overall reporting on Combined mpg's, not differentiated City or Highway mpg's
2) Lots of data, but it is all self-reported mpg's, and the drivers assessment of City/Hwy is self-assessed, not always reported, and not shown unless you look at the data for each individual car
3) Transmission type is only identified if the owner decides to put it in the title of the car, Fuelly does not break out the data by transmission, and many owners don't tell you what they are driving (though fuelly allows you to enter Hatch/Sedan, or three distinct engine types for our car that has only one engine type).

So you end up with Stevenhnm saying "5speeds and CVT get the same mpg's on fuelly".

If you actually look at the individual cars showing the highest reported mpg's, in the cases where the transmission IS identified, they are almost all CVT's.

Why might that be?

My theory is the Combined MPG's for CVT's is about the same as that for 5speeds because a higher percent of CVT miles driven are CITY miles, which drop the overall combined average.

This is based upon the "theory" that many drivers in urban driving environments buy automatics over standards, because bumper to bumper driving with a standard is not appealing to most of them. If you have visited many cities, or live in one, you can verify the veracity of this theory.

If you really care to check this information for yourself, go to Fuelly and find some of the Impreza's that show both a CVT transmission and low reported combined mpg's, and click on them to see if the owner is reporting the type of driving.

I did this for a few, and the Imprezas reporting some of the worst mileage are due to almost all CITY driving (no kidding...who would have thunk it?)

Of course Stevenhnm has already told us that is BS, because if 'he' lived in the City, of course he would choose a standard transmission over an automatic for that type of driving!

And don't you know that most 5speed owners are "enthusiasts" who drive their car like, racecar! (this is his other theory...)

So those are all competing theories. Ignore them, and look at Fuelly and the reports here on the forum that show the highest MPG's.

Which transmission has the reported highest HWY mpg's? CVT's, consistent with the EPA testing.

Now since stevenhnm and the GTIwannabe (who I have on ignore, but he is an obsessed stalker) don't have a 5 speed, and are obviously not "enthusiasts" (based upon their own criteria of not commenting on something they do not own), they should not pipe in again with lame theories about how us "enthusiasts" theoretically drive our awesome 5speeds!

Assuming the EPA staffer who looks over their complaints has at least a high school diploma (Snowden has shown this is not a given) it should not take long to poke holes in the mpg complaints (and those theories behind the complaints that are being sold as "facts").

Or maybe the EPA will simply duplicate the mpg testing to see if Subaru failed to perform the testing as mandated. My hunch is the few complaints that have been filed will not cause the EPA to retest the car, but anything is possible. However, I am confident that if the EPA retests the car, the numbers will come out the same.

Stevenhnm believes in math, science, and physics (one might think), but probably prefers they look at his spreedsheets instead of retesting the car...

Last edited by Zeeper; 06-19-2013 at 08:55 AM.
Reason: because I have a stalker who has nothing better to do than track my edits, lol

Fuelly is a good source of data, vis a vis CVT vs 5 Speed Highway mpg's, but only if you look at the individual vehicles that are getting the best mileage.

I'm not quite sure that makes sense...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeeper

So you end up with Stevenhnm saying "5speeds and CVT get the same mpg's on fuelly".

I can't take the credit for that. (see above)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeeper

If you actually look at the individual cars showing the highest reported mpg's, in the cases where the transmission IS identified, they are almost all CVT's.
Why might that be?

Maybe because there are a lot more CVT's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeeper

Now since stevenhnm and the GTIwannabe (who I have on ignore, but he is an obsessed stalker) don't have a 5 speed, and are obviously not "enthusiasts" (based upon their own criteria of not commenting on something they do not own), they should not pipe in again with lame theories about how us "enthusiasts" theoretically drive our awesome 5speeds!

The truth is all my other cars have been manual transmissions probably since ... Zeeper was in diapers. Actually that could have been just a couple years ago. Let me think here... since an old Chrysler I sort of inherited in the '90's.

I guess you completely (and obliviously) missed the fact that ALL of the highest mpg cars on his chart are CVT's (those with Combined Fuel economy higher than 33mpg), and most of those above 30mpg are CVT's.

Since ALL of the cars showing the reported highest Combined MPG's are CVT's, you might want to stop looking at the overall Combined mileage on fuelly and notice that your "evidence" only shows what I have already stated to be true, the CVT returns higher HWY mpg's than the 5 speed, all things being equal.

But don't just believe that data off Fuelly, the EPA testing showed the same exact thing, as do reports on this forum (all them lying liars, lol).

I've already shown you why comparing just the overall Combined Fuel economy from Fuelly, to determine HWY mpgs for CVT vs 5 Speeds is not possible. You should realize that when you AVERAGE numbers, lower numbers will drop the overall AVERAGE, even when there are those really HIGH MPG numbers in the dataset.

By the way, do you think the EPA will retest the car to see if Subaru failed to follow the mandated procedure, or not bother?

Last edited by Zeeper; 06-19-2013 at 11:23 AM.
Reason: because I have a stalker who has nothing better to do than track my edits, lol

I agree on Zeeper. He seems to impress those .... without higher level thinking. .

Steve would rather attempt to minimize others by claiming his superiority. Yet he holds SOA liable for results and testing procedures from the Gov's EPA
You wanna impress me? Drop this whole thread till you actually get some results back from your claim. You might have gathered 5 or so people from this to stand with you, Great!! Add them to your "claim" or "complaint" or whatever it actually is. I doubt you will gather anymore at this point. Report back after there is movement on it, Im interested to see if and where it goes.

I guess you completely (and obliviously) missed the fact that ALL of the highest mpg cars on his chart are CVT's (those with Combined Fuel economy higher than 33mpg), and most of those above 30mpg are CVT's.

I guess you completely (and obliviously) missed the fact that ALL of the lowest mpg cars on his chart are CVT's (those with Combined Fuel economy lower than 23mpg), and most of those below 30mpg are CVT's.

The point, which you probably don't understand, is that you are looking at the top graph and since there are many more CVT's than 5MT's most of the data is of CVT's.

To get the correct perspective you need to look at the bottom graph which represents numbers by percentage, and where it's more obvious that the 5MT's average higher than the CVT's.

I guess you completely (and obliviously) missed the fact that ALL of the lowest mpg cars on his chart are CVT's (those with Combined Fuel economy lower than 23mpg), and most of those below 30mpg are CVT's.

The point, which you probably don't understand, is that you are looking at the top graph and since there are many more CVT's than 5MT's most of the data is of CVT's.

To get the correct perspective you need to look at the bottom graph which represents numbers by percentage, and where it's more obvious that the 5MT's average higher than the CVT's.

Already been explained, but you are obviously having trouble with reading comprehension. ALL of the cars with the highest combined average fuel economy are CVT's, the cars on the lower end of the chart may include many CVT's, but further investigation will reveal the reason they are there (hint, CITY driving).

In fact, on the forums, reports from Impreza owners are that the CVT can return both the highest and lowest MPG's, all depending upon how it is driven, and the type of driving being done.

Of course if your car is on Fuelly it would be somewhere in the middle of that chart, not due to City driving, but due to your high speed driving up steep elevations (your time is worth more money than the extra gas it costs you to drive 75mph+, but why not complain that your mpgs suffer anyway, lol).

Nice try to spin the data, look at the top bars on that graph again, do you see any 5 speeds competing at the high end of the chart with those CVT's?

Since you like searching for spinnable data, why not read the NASIOC forums and provide us with the breakdown by transmission of the highest reported HWY mpg's.

Or make it even easier, can you find a single post on NASIOC that shows a 5 speed Impreza achieved higher HWY mpg's than the highest HWY mpgs reported by the forums CVT owners (there are many of those reporting EPA busting HWY mpg's, or do you not read those posts?)

Didn't think so...But your spin on that is that it is because us 5 speed owners are all "enthusiasts/race car"...

Gee whiz, for all of your spreadsheet superiority, you sure have a hard time grasping the concept of AVERAGING numbers...

Last edited by Zeeper; 06-19-2013 at 12:25 PM.
Reason: because I have a stalker who has nothing better to do than track my edits, lol

Well, besides the fact that there are over three times as many CVT datapoints as 5MT datapoints, it's clear from the discussion on this board that more CVT owners try to get their EPA estimates so drive more slowly.

Further, there are more CVT's getting below the bottom 5MT figure than there are CVT's getting above the top 5MT figure.

it's clear from the discussion on this board that more CVT owners try to get their EPA estimates so drive more slowly.

Further, there are more CVT's getting below the bottom 5MT figure than there are CVT's getting above the top 5MT figure.

Your first sentence is a theory that you have no evidence for, other than wishful thinking -- not to mention it is the polar opposite of how you drive your CVT! (really your same lame theory as "5 speed owners are enthusiasts" so they race around, pedal to the metal, lol)

Your second sentence is showing you still have no idea what COMBINED mpg means. As it pertains to the HWY mileage of CVT's vs 5 speeds, who cares if more CVT's show up on the lower end of the Combined MPG range, if more of those miles are CITY driving, it makes perfect sense.

The distribution of data on Fuelly that you are referencing in your second sentence also does not tell you if the CVT gets better or worse HWY mpg's than the 5 speed (see above, you are really having trouble grasping that Combined mpg's involves averaging numbers, it is a pretty simple math concept)

However the Fuelly data is revealing, can't you see that the top mpg's are achieved with the CVT, not the 5 speed, exactly as predicted by the EPA test.

Try again...

Last edited by Zeeper; 06-19-2013 at 11:56 PM.
Reason: because I have a stalker who has nothing better to do than track my edits, lol

You can't really trust fuelly data. It's an interesting side note at best.

Fuelly data is only useful to Stevenhnm when he thinks it proves his theories, he just gets a little cagey when you point out that the data proves him wrong about CVT vs 5 Speed (vis a vis which transmission can provide the highest HWY mpg's). He linked to the chart, you just need to look at the cars at the very top the chart to see only CVT's reporting the very highest combined mpg's.

He hasn't figured out a way to spin that, time will tell if he can come up with something other than his latest, and not greatest response, where he just ignores the data.

Hemophilic, your car is on Fuelly, so I checked what your combined mileage is and the reported CITY vs HWY mix.

I'm not sure why you think the EPA estimates are not accurate and decided to file a complaint with the EPA.

Your overall combined average of 27mpg is pretty much what you should expect given the majority of the driving you do is self-characterized as City. The 36mpg figure is for pure Highway driving, your car is rated at 27mpg City. So your own numbers, crazy as it sounds, are extremely close to the EPA estimate they printed on your window sticker, given the type of driving you do.

My car is rated at 33mpg HWY, but I rarely drive it on the highway. My overall combined mpg's over 11,000 miles is 27.61 mpg, which is within 0.4 mpg's of the EPA Combined mpg on my window sticker (28mpg).

So I could complain that I don't see 33mpg when I look at my mpg log (not Fuelly, but "Gas Cubby" app on my iPhone), but I know that is because of the type of driving I do (really neither city nor highway, but a mix of back roads, with only a little stop and go but lots of hills and mix of speeds), so why would I?

And for the peanut gallery: My mpg's over the winter, with snow tires, cold temps, and winter blend gas, were sometimes in the mid-20's, these days it hovers closer to 30mpg for the same exact driving route, speed, and driving style. The 27.61 Combined MPG shown on my phone will start to climb over the summer, and then drop again next winter. Chalk that up to reality, not EPA complaint worthy changes.

Last edited by Zeeper; 06-21-2013 at 12:16 AM.
Reason: because I have a stalker who has nothing better to do than track my edits, lol

Fuelly data is only useful to Stevenhnm when he thinks it proves his theories, he just gets a little cagey when you point out that the data proves him wrong about CVT vs 5 Speed (vis a vis which transmission can provide the highest HWY mpg's). He linked to the chart, you just need to look at the cars at the very top the chart to see only CVT's reporting the very highest combined mpg's.

He hasn't figured out a way to spin that, time will tell if he can come up with something other than his latest, and not greatest response, where he just ignores the data.

It's just a pretty picture to you isn't it? You don't quite understand that it's a bar graph, and for the same mpg the CVT bar is to the right of the 5MT???

Yes, and the vehicles that show the absolute highest combined mpg's are all CVT's, not a single 5 speed competing on the right of the chart you so caringly linked to.

Call it an inconvenient truth.

And please, for the love of god, figure out what happens when you average numbers so we can all talk about the same thing -- helpful for discussing Fuelly, since the primary data they supply is AVERAGE COMBINED MPG.

However, should Fuelly find a way to supply CITY and HWY numbers, you would still lose the argument -- try looking at the 'pretty chart' again, even you can figure out which transmission provides the highest mpg's in that data set.

If you can't figure it out, here is a hint -- the green bars on the right of the chart? Those represent the vehicles reporting the highest combined mpg's, and green on that chart, it means CVT's!

See, a kindergartener could understand it, it is color coded, are you still confused?